The  Fanaticism  of  the  Democratic  Party. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  OWEN  LOVEJOY,  OF  ILLINOIS. 


- — 0 - — — 

Delivered  in  the  IT.  S.  House  of  Representatives,  February  21, 1859. 

\ 

— — o— - 


Within  the  last  five  lustrums,  a  strange  fanat¬ 
icism  has  made  its  appearance  in  this  coun¬ 
try — -a. fanaticism  atonce  monstrous  and  malign. 
Twenty-five  years  ago,  by  the  universal  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  country,  Slavery  was  deemed  a 
moral,  social,  and  political  evil ;  a  wrong  to  the 
slave,  an  injury  to  the  owner,  a  blight  on  the 
soil,  a  detriment  to  all  the  best  interests  of  the 
communities  or  States  where  it  was  found,  and, 
in  its  reflex  influence,  a  reproach  and  damage 
to  the  whole  country.  By  many,  it  may  be,  this 
evil  was  considered  incurable,  but  still  an  evil. 
But  within  the  period  indicated,  a  different  sen¬ 
timent  has  sprung  up.  This  fanaticism  deems 
Slavery  not  an  evil,  bitt  a  blessing. 

Formerly  by  all,  and  still  by  all  right-think¬ 
ing  men,  Slavery  was  regarded  as  a  hag,  ugly, 
deformed,  wrinkled,  and  covered  with  the  daub 
and  paint  of  harlotry  )  but  now  we  are  told  it  is 
an  angel  of  beauty,  a  virgin  decked  in  bridal 
attire,  to  be  gased  on  with  complacency  and 
love  I  Candidates  who  aspire  to  gubernatorial 
honors  are  made  to  renounce  opinions  held  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ago,  and  give  in  their  ad¬ 
hesion  to  this  new  dogma,  to  wits  that  Slavery 
is  a  blessing.  It  is  not  any  longer  the  question 
how  a  cancer  can  be  cured — Whether  by  knife 
or  caustic,  or  other  remedial  agencies — but  to 
have  a  cancer  is  now  proclaimed  to  be  a  sound 
and  normal  condition  of  the  human  system,  the 
highest  type  of  health,  and,  if  on  the  face,  an 
ornament  and  beauty  spot.  Every  one,  to  en¬ 
joy  perfect  health,  must  have  this  form  of  dis¬ 
ease  gnawing  at  his  vitals.  The  spirit  of  this 
fanaticism  has  taken  possession  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party,  and  worked  therein  a  wonderful 


and  almost  incredible  transformation  ;  for,  since 
the  Ages  drew  up  the  reins  and  started  on 
their  journey,  I  do  not  suppose  they  have  wit¬ 
nessed  such  a  stupendous  Lie  as  the  Democratic 
party  now  is.  I  speak  of  the  organization,  with¬ 
out  any  reference  to  the  individuals  who  com¬ 
pose  the  party.  “  From  the  sole  of  the  foot  even 
unto  the  head, there  is  no  soundness  in  it;  but 
wounds,  and  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores :  they 
have  not  been  closed,  neither  bound  up,  neither 
mollified  with  ointment”  —  unmedicated  and 
unbandaged,  it  drips  with  its  fetid  putrescence. 

Look  at  the  President’s  message,  now  under 
discussion.  It  is  instinct  with  simulation  and 
deceit.  Professedly  he  deprecates  the  discus¬ 
sion  and  agitation  of  the  Slavery  question,  and 
yet  the  whole  of  the  message  is  engrossed  with 
it.  Not  a  leading  topic  of  that  state  paper  that 
has  not  a  direct  or  remote  bearing  on  it.  What 
do  we  want  of  another  slice  from  Mexico  ?  Is 
our  population  pressing  against  our  boundaries  ? 
Let  the  vast  regions  within  our  present  limits 
yet  unoccupied,  and  which  will  not  be  occu¬ 
pied  for  the  next  half  century,  answer  that 
question.  Why,  then,  does  the  Executive  urge 
the  acquisition  of  more  of  the  Mexican  domain? 
It  is  that  Slavery  and  Disunion,  twin-born  of 
Darkness,  may  have  a  rail  car  in  which  to  ride. 
This  is  openly  avowed,  in  the  other  end  of  the 
Capitol.  What  is  that  part  of  the  message  re¬ 
lating  to  Kansas,  but  the  querulous  last  word  of 
an  old  man,  whose  Fro-SUvery  policy  had  been 
condemned  by  the  country  ?  What  occasion  is 
there  for  the  doleful  tone  of  the  message  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  future  decadence  of  the  Republic, 
which  has  given  rise  in  Europe  to  so  many 


2 


prophecies  of  ill  omen  in  regard  to  our  future  ? 
How  eagerly  the  advocates  of  despotic  govern¬ 
ment  catch  up  this  Democratic  slander,  and 
foretell  the  downfall  of  our  free  institutions  ! 

But  what  is  the  trouble?  Is  there  any  dis¬ 
loyalty  to  the  Union  among  the  Republicans, 
or  indeed  among  any  class  in  the  free  States  ? 
No.  Any  disaffection  toward  our  principles  of 
Government?  None.  What  then  has  excited 
the  fears  of  this  urbane  and  hospitable  old 
gentleman  ?  Did  the  Chief  indite  the  message 
under  the  influence  of  too  deep  potations  from 
the  distillations  of  Rye  ?  No  one  believes  this. 
The  Slavery-extending  policy  of  the  Adminis¬ 
tration  had  received  a  terrible  rebuke  from  the 
people.  They  had  repudiated  the  President’s 
Sancho  Panza,  the  autocrat  of  the  dinner  table  ; 
and  the  poor  man,  shocked  and  bewildered, 
and  tearing  his  locks,  like  King  Lear,  thought 
the  Government  was  falling  to  pieces,  because 
Slavery  Propagandism  had  been  reprobated  by 
the  popular  vote.  Hinc  lachrymae !  Be  com¬ 
forted,  venerable  Chief!  It  is  not  the  free  in¬ 
stitutions  of  our  country,  but  the  Pro-Slavery 
Democracy,  that  is  falling  asunder  like  a  piece 
of  limestone  when  water  is  poured  upon  it. 
So  also  in  regard  to  Cuba.  The  real  object  of 
its  purchase  is  not  the  avowed  one.  It  is  gov¬ 
erned  by  a  race  who  do  not  speak  our  lan¬ 
guage — who  are  unused  to  self-government — 
who  have,  and  if  annexed  as  States  will  con¬ 
tinue  to  have,  an  established  form  of  religion, 
or  Church  and  State  united  ;  but,  in  spite  of 
all,  we  are  asked  to  purchase  this  island,  and 
to  place  thirty  millions  in  the  hands  of  the  Ex¬ 
ecutive,  to  begin  the  negotiations — that  is,  to 
buy  up  the  officials  !  Does  any  one  believe  that 
it  is  for  the  benefit  of  commerce,  or  the  safety  of 
navigation,  that  we  are  asked  to  do  all  this  ? 
If  so,  why  not  seek  to  purchase  the  British 
West  Indies?  Have  we  not  as  much  to  fear 
from  England  as  from  Spain?  And  where  is 
Canada  and  the  other  British  possessions,  that 
stretch  all  along  our  Northern  frontier,  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific?  No;  it  is  not  for 
the  benefit  of  commerce,  not  to  guard  against 
invasion,  that  we  are  asked  to  purchase  Cuba ; 
but  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  slave-breeders  and 
human-flesh  mongers.  Aud  yet  these  Demo¬ 
crats  profess  that  they  want  to  get  Slavery  out 
of  national  politics.  Would  to  God  they  were 
sincere!  Would  to  Heaven  this  beast  of  prey 
would  take  the  carcass  of  the  slain  into  its 
lair!  It  might  gnaw  the  flesh  and  craunch  the 
bones  without  molestation  from  me  !  But  in¬ 
stead  of  that,  it  asks  me  to  hold  its  victim  while 
it  sucks  the  blood.  But  this,  God  helping  me, 
I  never  will  do.  Take  your  pound  of  flesh,  if 
it  is  so  nominated  in  the  bond,  but  do  not  ask 
for  the  blood  as  well. 

Read  over  the  whole  message,  and  you  will 
find  its  entire  texture  to  be  Slavery.  Every 
topic  is  discussed  with  reference  to  its  bearings 
on  the  subject  of  Slavery.  And  yet  the  Demo¬ 
crats,  with  an  impudence  that  challenges  our 


admiration  for  its  sublimity,  turn  to  us,  and 
say,  “  Do  not  agitate  this  subject.”  Do  not  keep 
up  this  sectional  strife !  To  agitate,  to  legislate, 
to  make  treaties,  to  annex  territory,  to  purchase 
empires  for  Slavery,  is  all  right,  but  to  do  any¬ 
thing  against  Slavery  is  wrong  and  sectional. 

And  here  is  another  phase  of  this  fanatical 
spirit,  which  has  taken  up  its  dwelling  place 
in  the  Democratic  party.  It  identifies  Slavery 
with  the  nation,  and  especially  with  the  South. 

Now,  I  am  reckoned  as  ultra  and  extreme  as 
most  on  this  subject,  and  yet,  no  one  has  ever 
heard  me  say  anything  against  the  South.  It 
is  only  against  Slavery  that  I  have  spoken,  and 
I  propose  to  assail  that  only  in  those  modes 
justified  by  the  Constitution;  yet  I  am  sec¬ 
tional,  and  Republicans  are  sectional.  When 
they  only  seek  to  prevent  the  extension  of  a 
system  which  is  under  the  ban  of  the  civilized 
world,  they  are  charged  with  being  sectional. 
In  Illinois,  we  have  supped  full  of  this  horror. 
And  what  is  the  proof?  Oh,  we  have  no  dele¬ 
gates  from  slave  States  to  attend  our  National 
Nominating  Conventions.  Why  have  we  none? 
Mark  ;  because  if  delegates  attend  these  Con¬ 
ventions  they  are  mobbed  and  driven  into  exile. 
What  if  we,  in  the  free  States,  should  say  to  the 
Democrats,  “  If  you  attend  the  Charleston  Con¬ 
vention,  we  will  hang  you,”  and  thus  keep  them 
all  at  home,  and  then  reproach  them  with  being 
a  sectional  party,  because  only  the  slave  States 
were  represented  ?  11  Well,  you  have  no  votes  in 
the  slave  States ;  your  principles  do  not  circu¬ 
late  with  u3  at  all ;  you  dare  not  even  proclaim 
your  doctrines  among  us.”  And  why  do  not 
our  principles  circulate  in  the  slave  States  ? 
They  used,  for  they  are  the  principles  of  Wash¬ 
ington,  and  Franklin,  and  other  founders  of  the 
Republic.  The  reason  why  our  principles  do 
not  circulate  in  the  slave  States  is,  that  this 
despotism,  has,  like  another  Napoleon,  crushed 
out  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press. 
Allow  us  free  access  to  the  minds  of  the  non¬ 
slaveholders  of  the  South,  and  in  one  year  we 
would  have  more  Republican  votes  in  propor¬ 
tion,  in  the  slave  States,  than  there  are  Demo¬ 
cratic  votes  in  the  free  States.  “  Your  princi¬ 
ples  do  not  circulate  down  here,”  boasts  the 
Slavery  propagandist.  Sacred  history  tells  us 
of  a  certain  rich  man  who  died,  and  who  was 
very  unfortunate  in  the  selection  of  a  future 
home  ;  but,  though  an  impassable  gulf  spread 
itself  between  him  and  a  better  world,  it  seems 
he  could  converse  with  those  more  happily  sit¬ 
uated.  Supposing,  now,  this  man  should  lift 
up  his  voice,  and  send  it  booming  across  the 
chasm  that  yawns  between  heaven  and  hell, 
and  say,  “  Ho,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Gabriel,  and 
you  celestials  generally,  you  are  a  sectional 
party  up  there ;  your  principles  do  not  circu¬ 
late  down  here.”  And  why  does  not  Heaven’s 
truth  circulate  down  there  ?  Because  the  in¬ 
mates  are  so  wicked  that  they  will  not  tolerate 
the  presence  of  any  angel  preacher.  This  man 
must  have  been  a  good,  sound,  national  Demo- 


3 


crat.  And  so,  I  suppose,  was  that  illustrious 
personage  whom  Milton  has  described  as  bridg¬ 
ing  the  chasm  that  spread  between  earth  and 
the  place  of  his  exile,  and  who  claimed  the 
right  of  carrying  the  local  institutions  of  his 
realm  into  Paradise. 

And  this  reminds  me  to  say  that  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party,  led  on  by  this  insane  fanaticism, 
which  holds  Slavery  to  be  morally  right,  under 
the  guidancce  of  a  political  harlequin  and  trick¬ 
ster,  has  proclaimed  the  constitutional  right  of 
Slavery  to  go  into  the  Territories  without  let  or 
hindrance.  Plighted  national  faith  is  broken 
and  dishonored  1  Principles  once  declared 
sacred  by  this  very  leader,  and  said  to  be  can¬ 
onized  in  the  hearts  of  the  American  people, 
are  ruthlessly  and  recklessly  trampled  under 
foot.  We  had  an  angel  of  Liberty  stationed  at 
the  portals  of  our  Territories.  For  thirty  years, 
this  sentinel  had  kept  watch  and  ward,  and 
guarded  that  magnificent  domain  as  the  herit¬ 
age  of  Freedom,  and,  with  the  flaming  sword  of 
the  ordinance  of  the  patriots  of  the  olden  time, 
kept  out  Slavery  from  this  Eden.  Who  chased 
away  this  angel,  and  broke  down  the  walls  that 
enclosed  that  empire,  consecrated  to  the  sons 
and  daughters  of  Freedom  as  a  dwelling  place 
and  home,  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  should 
endure  ?  Who  did  this  ruthless,  reckless, 
damnable  work?  The  Democratic  party,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  individual  I  have  indicated. 
Under  what  plea  was  Slavery  thus  allowed  to 
enter  in  and  ravage  the  heritage  of  Freedom  ? 
On  the  same  ground  that  the  madman  opens 
the  pest  house  to  let  leprosy,  plague,  and  cholera, 
rush  forth,  as  did  the  winds  from  the  fabulous 
cave,  to  walk  at  midnight  and  waste  at  noon¬ 
day.  A  man  with  a  contagious  disease  must 
not  stay  in  his  own  house,  nor  be  confined  in 
the  hospital,  but  must  be  allowed  to  roam 
abroad,  to  spread  disease  and  death  among  his 
fellow  men!  What  is  this,  but  the  veriest  mad¬ 
ness  that  ever  raved  in  Bedlam  !  I  know  it  is 
said  that  there  are  two  wings  to  the  Democratic 
party.  I  am  aware  of  that,  and  I  know,  also, 
that  both  wings  belong  to  the  same  vulture, 
and,  although  one  has  been  slightly  out  of  joint, 
it  has  now  got  back  to  its  place,  and  both  will 
flap  in  unison,  to  bear  the  carrion  bird  back  to 
gorge  and  fatten  on  the  carcass  where  it  has 
gorged  and  fattened  so  long. 

But  the  strangest  and  most  impious  phase  of 
this  fanaticism  is,  that  it  claims  the  sanction  of 
the  Bible  for  American  Slavery.  I  have  neither 
time  nor  disposition  to  enter  into  a  philological 
argument  on  this  question.  I  shall  not  ran¬ 
sack  Greek  lexicons  and  musty  manuscripts  to 
ascertain  the  precise  etymological  force  of  the 
Greek  words  translated  servant  in  the  Bible. 
And  as  for  the  grand  old  Hebrew,  in  which  the 
ancient  Scriptures  were  written,  it  has  no  word 
which  describes  or  recognises  a  human  being  as 
a  piece  of  property.  Before  quoting  chapter  or 
verse,  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  having  a  gen¬ 
eral  bearing  on  this  subject.  The  Theocratic 


charter  granted  to  the  Jews  was  exclusive,  and 
constituted  them  a  kind  of  close  corporation, 
with  peculiar  privileges  as  a  commonwealth. 
But  all  those  unusual  franchises  were  bestow¬ 
ed  upon  them  on  the  express  condition  that 
they  should  comply  with  a  prescribed  ritual. 
God  explicitly  declared  that  he  would  slay  every 
native-born  Jew  that  did  not  comply  with  the 
provisions  of  their  charter.  Now,  1  desire  to 
inquire  of  those  who  claim  the  right  to  hold 
slaves  under  this  old  charter  given  to  the  Jews, 
Have  you  complied  with  the  requisitions  of  that 
charter?  Do  you  abstain  from  Virginia  ham 
and  other  swine’s  flesh?  Do  you  observe  the 
new  moons,  the  sabbaths,  circumcision,  and 
the  appointed  feasts  ?  If  not,  you  are  no  Jew, 
and  are  not  entitled  to  the  franchises  of  a  Jew; 
but  on  the  other  hand  you  belong  to  the  Gen¬ 
tile  race,  who,  according  to  your  theory,  were  of 
right  made  slaves.  If  the  advocates  of  Slavery 
choose  to  go  back  and  place  themselves  under 
a  code  of  laws  given  to  a  race  of  men  evidently 
yet  in  a  state  of  barbarism,  let  them  take  the 
whole  code,  and  abide  by  it,  and  obey  it.  An¬ 
other  statement.  If  the  Bible  sanctions  Sla¬ 
very  at  all,  it  is  the  enslavement  of  white  men. 
No  one  pretends  that  the  servants  spoken  of  in 
the  Bible  were  blacks.  The  Roman  slave  was 
not  a  black  man.  The  Hebrew  servant  was 
not  a  black  man.  The  question  is,  whether 
the  laboring  man,  white  or  black,  may  right¬ 
fully  be  enslaved. 

I  may  as  well  notice,  here,  that  worn-out  quo¬ 
tation  erroneously  placed  on  Ham.  Noah  plant¬ 
ed  a  vineyard,  raised  some  grapes,  made  some 
wine,  and  got  drunk.  When  he  waked  up,  still 
fuddled  with  the  fumes  of  the  wine,  sotlo  voce , 
so  confused  he  did  not  know  his  son  from  his 
grandson,  he  uttered  the  malediction,  “  cursed 
be  Canaan,”  not  Ham,  who  had  been  guilty  of 
the  wrong.  And  now,  in  the  blaze  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  with  the  radiance  of  Christianity 
shining  around,  Democrats  go  mousing  back 
five  thousand  years  to  learn  the  basis  of  human 
rights  from  the  lips  of  a  man  still  half  drunk. 
“  Cursed  be  Canaan  ”  is  evermore  the  refrain 
of  Democratic  minstrelsy. 

And  now  to  the  Bible.  I  will  not  detain  the 
Committee  long,  for  I  have  no  patience  with  the 
impiety  that  attempts  to  throw  the  sanction  of 
this  holy  book  around  the  diabolical  system  of 
American  Slavery.  What  says  this  inspired 
volume?  “Thou  shalt  not  steal!”  Brief,  com 
prehensive,  and  to  the  point.  This  must  be 
taken  from  the  Bible,  before  it  can  be  made 
to  sanction  Slavery.  Does  this  forbid  my  ta¬ 
king  my  neighbor’s  horse,  but  allow  me  to  re¬ 
duce  the  man  to  a  slave,  and  then  claim  them 
both  ?  How  much  better  is  a  man  than  a  sheep  ? 
If  I  am  told  that  Slavery  is  not  theft,  because 
the  felonious  intent  is  not  there,  I  reply,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia  replied,  who  has  in 
former  years  on  this  floor  attempted  to  justify 
Slavery  on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
declared  that  the  act  of  Paulding  in  arresting 


4 


the  marauder,  Walker,  was  an  act  of  robbery. 
Some  one  replied,  that  it  could  not  be  robbery, 
for  there  was  no  felonious  intent.  The  gentle¬ 
man  from  Georgia  rejoined,  “  I  said  robbery;  I 
did  not  say  legal  robbery.”  So  I  say  theft;  I 
do  not  say  legal  theft,  or  theft  in  the  legal  sense. 
We  are  talking  about  the  moral,  not  the  legal, 
character  of  Slavery.  The  title  to  every  slave 
originated  in  violence  and  robbery,  and  its  con¬ 
tinuance  has  no  other  moral  character.  There 
can  be  no  mistake  about  the  rightful  ownership 
of  a  human  being.  He  belongs  to  himself.  Be¬ 
cause  my  father  or  mother  was  reduced  to  the 
condition  of  a  slave,  does  that  justify  my  being 
reduced  to  the  same  condition  of  brutism  ? 
Does  the  continuance  of  wrong  take  away  its 
guilt  ?  I  repeat,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
the  ownership  of  any  human  being.  The  title 
is  in  himself.  To  take  it  from  him  is  robbery. 
But  we  have  a  specific  statute  on  this  subject. 
“  He  that  stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  or  if 
he  be  found  in  his  hands,”  that  is,  in  his  posses¬ 
sion,  “  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.”  This 
enactment  takes  this  transaction  out  of  the  cat¬ 
alogue  of  ordinary  crime,  and  brands  it  with 
peculiar  reprobation.  Other  forms  of  theft 
could  be  atoned  for  by  returning  four-fold  ;  this 
claimed  the  forfeiture  of  life  itself,  thus  making 
it  a  capital  offence.  No  squirming  of  sophistry 
can  get  round  this.  There  it  stands,  the  esti¬ 
mate  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  of  the  crime  of 
trafficking  in  human  flesh.  So  once  thought 
the  Presbyterian  church,  when  they  declared 
slaveholding  to  be  a  violation  of  the  eighth  com¬ 
mandment.  So  thought  President  Edwards, 
when  he  declared  the  slaveholder  guilty  of  man¬ 
stealing  every  day.  This  was  the  constitutional 
law  of  the  Jewish  Commonwealth.  No  other 
statute  could  contravene  it,  any  more  than  a 
State  or  Territorial  law  could  annul  a  provision 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  All  the 
instances  of  buying  and  selling  relied  upon  by 
the  advocates  of  Slavery  are  confined  to  the  per¬ 
son  bought  and  the  person  sold.  A  person 
“ falling  into  decay"  sold  himself,  not  as  a  chat¬ 
tel  or  slave,  but  as  a  servant  for  a  term  of  years ; 
and  when  the  jubilee  came  round,  liberty  was 
proclaimed  throughout  all  the  land,  to  all  the 
inhabitants  thereof.  When  there  was  a  failure 
on  the  part  of  the  people  to  proclaim  this  lib¬ 
erty,  promised  and  secured  by  law,  then  God 
proclaimed  a  liberty  to  them  to  the  sword,  and 
to  the  pestilence,  and  those  other  judgments 
that  fell  swift  and  terrific  from  the  hand  of  an 
incensed  God.  It  was  this  providential  retri¬ 
bution  which  made  Jefferson  tremble  for  his 
country,  when  he  remembered  that  God  was 
just,  and  that  his  justice  would  not  sleep  for¬ 
ever.  In  the  uprising  of  these  oppressed  mill¬ 
ions,  he  averred  that  no  attribute  of  Jehovah 
could  take  sides  with  the  oppressor. 

Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  is  the  re¬ 
quirement  of  the  Bible.  Slavery  utterly  an¬ 
nuls  this  command.  The  owner  claims  honor 
and  obedience,  to  the  utter  disregard  of  parental 


authority  and  parental  claims.  Whoever  thinks 
of  a  slave  child  obeying  his  parent  in  prefer¬ 
ence  to  his  master  ?  The  very  suggestion  is 
preposterous.  Does  the  Bible  sanction  a  sys¬ 
tem  that  abrogates  its  own  injunctions? 

There  stands  that  slave  mother,  pressing  with 
a  mother’s  love  her  own  child  to  her  heart  l 
To  whom  does  it  belong?  Is  it  not  hers 
against  the  universe  ?  Is  there  any  being,  this 
side  the  throne  of  God,  that  has  the  right  to 
take  it  from  her  ?  Has  the  master  the  right  to 
come  and  tear  it  away  from  her  embrace,  and 
claim  it  as  his  properity  ?  And  is  this  robbery 
sanctioned  by  the  Bible,  and  that  Bible  the 
word  of  God?  I  know  the  people  are  taught 
this  by  a  ministry  that  I  dislike  to  characterize 
as  I  think  they  deserve. 

“  Wealth,  lust,  and  fashion,  bid  them  still  to  bleed, 

And  holy  men  quote  Scripture  for  the  deed.” 

But  these  men  do  not  truly  interpret  the  Bi¬ 
ble.  They  teach  for  doctrines  the  command¬ 
ments  of  men,  and  make  the  word  of  God  of 
none  effect  through  their  traditions.  How  dare 
these  men  make  the  Bible  lend  its  sanction  to 
a  system  that  abrogates  parental  authority  and 
filial  duty  ? 

So,  also,  with  the  conjugal  relation.  The  Bi¬ 
ble  everywhere  represents  this  as  the  most 
sacred,  inviolate,  and  indissoluble  of  all  human 
relations.  Father  and  mother  are  to  be  for¬ 
saken,  in  obedience  to  the  claims  of  this  still 
higher  and  holier  relation.  Now,  what  does 
Slavery  do  with  this  domestic  institution  ?  Leave 
God  and  the  parties  perfectly  free  to  regulate 
it  in  their  own  way  ?  No ;  with  impious  and 
brazen  front,  it  steps  in  and  utterly  annihilates 
the  marriage  relation,  so  far  as  its  victims  are 
concerned.  There  is  no  more  any  legal  marriage 
among  the  three  or  four  millions  of  slaves  in 
the  United  States,  than  there  is  among  so  many 
cattle.  Slaves  in  the  eye  of  the  law  are  cattle, 
and  their  union  is  that  of  brutes.  They  are 
declared  to  be  goods,  chattels  personal,  to  all 
intents,  constructions,  and  purposes,  whatever. 
The  civil  law  which  prevails  in  some  of  the 
States  takes  them  pro  nullis,  pro  mortuis ,  pro 
quadrupedibus. 

.  Would  it  not  be  an  interesting  spectacle  to 
see  one  of  these  clergymen,  who  teach  that  the 
Bible  sanctions  Slavery,  called  in  to  attend  the 
wedding  of  a  bureau  and  chest  of  drawers  I 
The  chairs,  and  shovel  and  tongs,  are  invited 
as  guests.  After  a  fervent  prayer  for  the  di¬ 
vine  blessing,  the  clergyman  says  : 

“  By  the  old  Levitical  laws, 

I  join  the  bureau  to  the  drawers.” 

Quid  Rides  ?  muiato  nomine,  de  tefdbula  narratur. 

Absolutely,  there  can  be  no  more  a  legal  mar¬ 
riage  between  two  slaves,  than  between  two  ar¬ 
ticles  of  furniture,  or  between  two  brutes.  They 
“take  up  together;  ”  they  do  not  marry.  No 
clergyman  dare  pronounce  two  slaves  husband 
and  wife  till  death  shall  separate  them.  The 
will  of  the  master  is  their  fate.  The  Bible  says  : 
“  What  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no  man 


5 


put  asunder.”  The  slave  system  says  :  Who 
cares  for  God?  I  will  separate  them  when  I 
please.  A  slave  who  is  a  church  member  is 
taught  by  his  religious  teachers,  that  it  is  his 
duty,  on  being  sold  from  one  plantation  to  an¬ 
other,  leaving  a  so-called  wife  behind,  to  take 
another  mate ;  and  the  reason  assigned  by 
these  pious  instructors  is,  that  in  this  way  he 
can  be  most  profitable  to  his  master,  which  is 
his  first  and  paramount  duty.  Thus  he  may,  as 
a  good  Christian,  take  up  with  a  new  woman  on 
every  plantation  to  which  he  is  sold.  This  has 
been  formally  so  decided  by  an  ecclesiastical 
council.  And  yet  these  blasphemers  seek  to 
make  God  a  partner  in  this  revolting  practice. 

The  Bible  everywhere  requires  an  equivalent 
to  be  given  for  services  rendered.  u  Wo  unto 
him  that  buildeth  his  house  by  unrighteousness 
and  his  chambers  by  wrong ;  that  useth  his 
neighbor’s  service  without  wages,  and  giveth 
him  not  for  his  work.”  “  Behold,  the  hire  of 
the  laborers  who  have  reaped  down  your  fields, 
which  by  you  is  kept  back  by  fraud,  crieth  ;  and 
the  cries  of  them  that  have  reaped  are  entered 
into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth.”.  Slavery 
never  allows  any  wages  at  all  to  those  who  gar¬ 
ner  in  its  harvests.  To  say  that  the  clothing 
and  the  food  that  the  slave  receives  are  wages, 
is  to  say  that  the  hay,  grain,  and  stabling  of  the 
horse,  are  wages.  These  constitute  the  keep¬ 
ing  of  the  horse  and  of  the  slave ;  wages  they 
are  not. 

It  is  frequently  said,  that  although  individu¬ 
als  may  do  wrong,  yet  the  system  is  right. 
Now,  it  is  against  the  system  that  I  speak.  The 
truth  is,  the  individuals  are  better  than  the  sys¬ 
tem.  The  humanity — and  in  my  charity,  per¬ 
haps,  I  ought  to  say  the  Christianity — of  the 
master  often  triumphs  to  a  great  extent  over 
the  system.  If  every  master  exemplified  the 
extreme  capability  of  the  system  for  outrage 
and  diabolism,  an  indignant  world  would  rise 
and  wipe  it  out. 

Suppose,  now,  this  system,  all  reeking  with 
lust,  incest,  crime,  and  cruelty,  is  brought  out 
and  placed  under  the  blaze  of  Christianity. 
Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto 
you,  do  ye  even  so  unto  them  ;  for  this  is  the 
law  and  the  prophets.  This  is  the  condensed 
summary  of  the  whole  Bible.  Who  has  the 
hardihood  to  say  that  the  practice  of  slavehold¬ 
ing  is  consistent  with  this  injunction  ?  What, 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  the  classification  of 
slaveholders  ?  It  places  them  with  murderers 
of  fathers  and  murderers  of  mothers. 

Everywhere  the  Bible  inculcates  a  spirit  of 
generous  magnanimity.  u  Ye  that  are  strong 
ought  to  bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak,  and 
not  to  please  yourselves.”  Slavery,  I  know, 
claims  this  attribute,  and  talks  about  its  chiv¬ 
alry  and  magnanimity.  And  is  it  not  magnani¬ 
mous  to  cheat  a  poor,  ignorant,  degraded  man, 
out  of  the  entire  earnings  of  his  whole  life — rob 
him  of  his  wife  and  children,  and  then  justify  it 
by  saying  that  they  are  an  inferior  race  ?  Ad¬ 


mit  the  fact  of  inferiority — does  it  therefore  fol¬ 
low  that  it  is  right  to  oppress  them  ?  Every 
page  of  the  Bible  flashes  its  anathemas  against 
the  oppression  of  the  poor  and  helpless.  The 
chivalry  of  the  Bible  is  to  help  the  weak,  to  pro¬ 
tect  the  defenceless,  and  rescue  those  in  peril. 
This,  indeed,  is  the  idea  of  the  olden  chivalry. 
Witness  the  incident  in  the  romance  of  Ivan- 
hoe.  The  true  knight,  enfeebled  by  sickness, 
rides  into  the  lists  to  meet  a  powerful  antago¬ 
nist — and  in  whose  defence?  For  one  belonging 
to  a  race  as  despised  and  degraded  then  as  that 
of  the  African  now  is.  This  chivalry  we  recog¬ 
nise  as  having  something  manly  and  noble  in 
it.  But,  from  the  chivalry  that  robs  mothers  of 
their  children  ;  that  applies  the  scourge  to  help¬ 
less  women,  to  secure  their  labor  or  make  them 
surrender  their  chastity  ;  which  sells  a  boy  for 
a  harlot  and  a  girl  for  a  pair  of  shoes ;  which, 
by  superior  knowledge,  combination,  and  legal 
enactment,  reduces  millions  of  human  beings 
to  the  condition  of  brutism,  and  then  by  false 
teaching  seeks  to  delude  their  conscience,  and 
cause  them  to  believe  that  their  enslavement 
is  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God — from  all 
such  chivalry  I  ask  to  be  delivered. 

The  Bible  sanctions  Slavery,  and,  if  the  Bible, 
then  God.  What  kind  of  an  ideal  of  Deity  has 
that  religionist  who  holds  this  doctrine  ?  The 
ancients  divided  their  vices,  and  made  one  of 
their  gods  the  divinity  of  each.  The  advocate 
of  Bible  Slavery  takes  a  system  that  concen¬ 
trates  in  itself  all  crime,  and  makes  Jehovah  its 
patron  Deity.  I  do  wish  that  Slavery  would 
leave  U3  an  ideal  of  the  Supreme  Being  that  is 
not  polluted  with  its  slimy  touch.  It  is  said 
of  Goldsmith,  as  a  writer,  that  there  was  noth¬ 
ing  that  he  did  not  touch,  and  nothing  that  he 
touched  that  he  did  not  beautify.  And  it  can 
truly  be  said  of  Slavery,  that  there  is  nothing 
that  it  does  not  touch,  and  nothing  that  it 
touches  that  it  does  not  defile.  It  has  perverted 
the  Government,  violated  the  national  faith, 
muzzled  the  press,  debauched  the  church,  cor¬ 
rupted  Christianity,  and  seeks  to  change  the 
glory  of  the  invisible  God  into  a  Moloch,  and 
transform  the  eternal  and  loving  Father  into  a 
patron  of  cruelty,  lust,  and  injustice  ;  and  then, 
with  the  impudence  of  the  strange  woman, 
wipes  its  mouth,  and  says,  I  have  committed 
no  sin.  I  should  be  ashamed  of  such  a  God  as 
that !  It  is  to  me  utterly  incomprehensible  that 
any  one  can  sincerely  believe  that  the  Bible 
sanctions  the  system  of  American  Slavery,  and 
I  leave  that  point. 

But  this  fanaticism  goes  still  farther,  and  ar¬ 
rogates  to  itself  prerogatives  which  God  himself 
never  claimed,  and  what,  be  it  spoken  with  rev¬ 
erence,  the  Supreme  Being  himself  cannot  do  ; 
and  that  is,  to  make  right  and  wrong.  Before 
all  law  and  above  all  law,  human  and  divine,  is 
the  idea  of  right  and  wrong,  eternal,  indestruct¬ 
ible.  The  Omnipotent  does  not  claim  the  right 
or  power  to  annihilate  this  distinction.  He 
himself  bows  to  this  idea,  which  sits  enthroned, 


6 


absolute  and  supreme,  higher  than  the  Highest. 
The  supreme  Legislator  never  undertook,  by 
mere  arbitrary  enactment,  to  obliterate  this  dis¬ 
tinction,  and  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light 
for  darkness — bitter  for  sweet,  and  sweet  for  bit¬ 
ter.  His  own  conduct  is  controlled  by  His  per¬ 
ceptions  of  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong. 
Human  statutes  cannot  do  what  Divine  legis¬ 
lation  never  attempted  to  achieve.  Can  you,  by 
a  Congressional  enactment,  change  the  laws 
that  govern  the  material  world  ?  Can  you  make 
the  Potomac  roll  back  to  its  sources  amid  those 
far-off  hills,  or  calm  the  ocean,  when,  moved  from 
its  depths,  it  lifts  its  crested  waves  on  high,  and 
dashes  them  in  broken  spray  against  the  bee¬ 
tling  crags  ?  Much  less  can  you  annul  the  eter¬ 
nal  distinction  between  right  and  wrong.  The 
attempt  is  and  must  forever  remain  utterly  vain 
and  impotent. 

The  gentleman  from  Georgia  the  other  day 
called  our  attention  to  the  sublime  spectacle  of 
State  after  State  emerging  from  a  Territorial 
condition,  and  wheeling  into  line  as  sovereign 
States  in  this  Confederacy.  In  this  process, 
according  to  the  gentleman,  were  united  the 
two  principles  of  expansion  and  popular  sov¬ 
ereignty,  and  the  gentleman  was  reminded  of 
that  grand  chorus  which  an  ancient  exile  heard 
when  there  was  poured  upon  his  ear  the  voice 
of  many  waters,  and  the  voice  of  the  thunders, 
and  the  voice  of  the  Almighty,  and  the  utterance 
of  ocean  and  thunder  and  of  Jehovah  was,  “  Vox 
Populi  vox  Dei."  Sir,  I  claim  that  the  voice 
of  truth,  and  justice,  and  liberty,  is  the  voice 
of  God.  When  I  hear  the  voice  of  thousands 
and  thousands,  and  ten  times  ten  thousand, 
swelling  upward,  like  the  voice  of  many  waters 
and  the  voice  of  mighty  thunders  and  the  voice 
of  the  Almighty,  it  is  that  other  and  better 
sentiment,  “Let  justice  prevail,  though  the 
universe  crumbles.”  Aye,  sir;  I  too  heard  the 
voice  of  the  people,  and  it  went  surging  through 
the  streets  of  Judea’s  proud  metropolis.  It 
swept  through  the  portals  of  Pilate’s  Judgment 
Hall,  and  echoed  along  its  arches,  crying, 
“  Crucify  him  I  Crucify  him  !  ”  Was  “  Vox 
Populi  vox  Dei ”  then?  Did  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia  hear  the  voice  of  the  Almighty, 
responsive  to  the  popular  will,  demanding  the 
crucifixion  of  his  own  Son  ?  Did  their  cry  of 
blood  have  the  Divine  sanction,  simply  because 
they  had  voted  it,  and  because  they  had  a  law 
by  which  the  Man  of  Nazareth  must  be  put  to 
death  ?  What  an  impious  dogma  1 

But  let  us  follow  this  expansion  and  vox- 
populi  doctrine.  We  already  embrace  Utah; 
there  the  voice  of  the  people  sanctions  and  de¬ 
mands  a  multiplicity  of  wives.  Is  it  the  voice 
of  God?  We  acquire  Cuba;  and  there  the 
voice  of  the  people  demands  the  union  of 
Church  and  State,  and  forbids  a  prayer  to  be 
uttered  by  the  open  grave  of  a  friend  who 
breathed  out  his  soul  beyond  the  pale  of  the 
Papal  church  ;  and  the  voice  of  the  people  is 
the  voice  of  God !  Expansion!  We  sweep  on¬ 


ward,  and  take  in  Mexico  ;  and  in  some  se¬ 
questered  vale  there  is  a  remnant  of  the  old 
Aztec  race,  with  their  Teocalli  surrounded 
with  human  skulls.  The  voice  of  the  people 
iere  leads  forth  a  pampered  young  man,  the 
fairest  and  best  of  the  nation,  decorated  with 
lowers,  up  to  the  consecrated  hill,  laying  him  on 
the  sacrificial  stone,  and  with  breast  raised,  the 
wriest  seizes  the  knife,  and  drags  it  craunching 
through  the  ribs,  and  tears  out  the  heart,  all 
reeking  and  quivering  ;  and  this  is  the  voice 
of  God  ! 

But  we  have  taken  in  the  continent,  from 
Esquimaux  to  Patagonian,  and  still  we  must 
expand.  We  ride  forth  on  the  Pacific  wave, 
and  annex  theFeejee  Islands,  and  the  voice  of 
the  people  here  is  to  feast  on  human  flesh,  and 
;he  voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice  of  God  1 
Is  this  an  insane  asylum  ?  Is  the  Democracy 
struck  with  lunacy  as  well  as  filled  with  fanati¬ 
cism  ? 

The  Slavery  Democracy  prates  and  chatters 
about  “  negro  equality,”  “Black  Republicans,” 
and  “nigger  stealing,”  to  use  its  classic  phrase 
and  improved  orthography.  It  has,  or  affects 
to  have,  a  great  horror  of  “  niggers.”  And  any 
one  who  advocates  the  principles  of  human 
Freedom,  as  they  were  enunciated  and  laid 
down  in  enduring  forms  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Republic,  is  a  “  woolly  head,”  and  these  same 
Democrats  have  Darned  to  speak  of  them  with 
a  peculiar  nasal  twist.  Naso  contemnere  adunco. 
You  would  suppose  that  these  gentlemen,  whose 
olfactories  are  so  sensitive  and  acute,  never 
saw  a  nigger,  unless  in  a  menagerie.  And  yet, 
would  you  believe  it!  the  very  first  service  ren¬ 
dered  him  on  earth  is  performed  by  a  nigger ; 
as  an  infant,  he  draws  the  milk  which  makes 
his  flesh  and  blood  and  bones  from  the  breast 
of  a  nigger ;  looks  up  in  her  face  and  smiles, 
and  calls  her  by  the  endearing  name  of  11  mam¬ 
my,” 

(Incipe  parve  puer.  Cognosccre  risu  matrem.) 

and  begs,  perhaps,  in  piteous  tones,  for  the 
privilege  of  carrying  “mammy”  to  the  Territo¬ 
ries  ;  he  is  undressed  and  put  to  bed  by  a  nig¬ 
ger,  and  nestles  during  the  slumbers  of  infancy 
in  the  bosom  of  a  nigger  ;  he  is  washed,  dress¬ 
ed,  and  taken  to  the  table,  by  a  nigger,  to  eat 
food  prepared  by  a  nigger ;  he  is  led  to  and 
from  school  by  a  nigger ;  every  service  that 
childhood  demands  is  performed  by  a  nigger, 
except  that  of  chastisement,  which,  from  the 
absence  of  good  manners  in  many  cases,  it  is 
to  be  feared  is  not  performed  at  all.  When 
down  appears  on  his  lip,  the  tonsorial  service  is 
performed  by  a  nigger  ;  and  when  he  reaches 
manhood,  he  invades  the  nigger  quarters,  to 
place  himself  in  the  endearing  relation  of  pa¬ 
ternity  to  half  niggers.  Finally,  if  he  should 
be  ambitious,  it  may  occur  that  he  will  come 
to  Congress  to  represent  a  constituency,  three- 
fifths  of  whom  are  niggers,  and  talk  about 
•  “  Black  Republicans,”  “  amalgamation,”  “  nig- 


7 


ger  equality,”  “  nigger  stealing,”  and  the  offen¬ 
sive  odor  of  niggerism. 

I  insist  upon  it,  we  have  had  enough  of  this 
tomfoolery.  Let  members  from  the  slave  States 
treat  us  with  the  courtesy  due  from  one  gentle¬ 
man  to  another,  and  they  will  receive  the  same 
in  return.  But  till  then,  if  God  pleases,  they 
shall  have  a  Roland  for  an  Oliver.  I  call  gen¬ 
tlemen  to  witness,  that  during  all  last  session 
I  endured  this  kind  of  abuse.  Scurrilous  let¬ 
ters  were  read  from  the  Clerk’s  desk,  and  I 
held  my  peace.  Again  this  session,  old  Mose 
is  exhumed,  and  served  up  in  a  Democratic  re¬ 
hash.  And  who  is  this  old  Mose,  that  is  to  form 
the  pabulum  of  an  interesting  chapter,  when 
some  Democratic  historian  shall  give  us  the 
history  of  the  United  States?  A  poor,  old 
septgenarian  negro,  whom  I  never  saw,  and 
of  whom  I  never  heard  till  he  came  to  my 
door — free  by  the  admission  of  the  blackguard 
who  had  owned  him.  I  gave  him  a  meal  of 
victuals  ;  he  remained  a  few  hours  till  the  cars 
came,  when  I  secured  the  payment  of  his  pas¬ 
sage  to  Chicago,  and  he  went  on  his  way  re¬ 
joicing,  like  the  Ethiopian  of  old.  By  the  way, 
ought  there  not  to  be  an  ecumenical  council  of 
the  Democratic  church,  to  get  out  an  expurga¬ 
ted  edition  of  the  Bible  ?  What  a  scandalous 
thing,  that  Philip  should  ride  with  the  Ethio 
pian  ?  It  is  asked  why  I  did  not  state  these 
facts  before.  I  answer,  I  will  not  hold  myself 
bound  to  explain  every  ebullition  of  black¬ 
guardism,  either  in  or  out  of  Congress.  When 
a  boy,  I  used  to  strike  back  at  every  dog  that 
barked  at  me  as  I  rode  along  the  highways ; 
but  I  have  ceased  doing  so,  long  since,  and  let 
them  bite  the  iron  that  encircles  the  wheel. 

And  now,  what  about  this  negro  equality  of 
which  we  hear  so  much,  in  and  out  of  Congress  ? 
It  is  claimed  by  the  Democrats  of  to-day,  that 
Jefferson  has  uttered  an  untruth  in  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  principles  which  undeilie  our  Govern¬ 
ment.  I  still  abide  by  the  Democracy  of  Jef¬ 
ferson,  and  avow  my  belief  that  all  men  are 
created  equal.  Equal  how?  Not  in  physical 
strength  ;  not  in  symmetry  of  form  and  propor¬ 
tion  ;  not  in  gracefulness  of  motion,  or  loveli¬ 
ness  of  feature ;  not  in  mental  endowment, 
moral  susceptibility,  and  emotional  power  ;  not 
socially  equal ;  not  of  necessity  politically 
equal — not  this,  but  every  human  being  equally 
entitled  to  his  life,  his  liberty,  and  the  fruit  of 
his  toil.  The  Democratic  party  deny  this  fun¬ 
damental  doctrine  of  our  Government,  and  say 
that  there  is  a  certain  class  of  human  beings 
who  have  no  rights.  If  you  maliciously  kill 
them,  it  is  no  murder;  if  you  take  away  their 
liberty,  it  is  no  crime ;  if  you  deprive  them  of 
their  earnings,  it  is  no  theft.  No  rights  which 
another  is  bound  to  regard  1  Was  there  ever 
so  much  diabolism  compressed  into  one  sen¬ 
tence  ? 

Why  do  the  Democrats  come  to  us  with  their 
complaints  about  the  negroes  ?  I,  for  one,  feel 
no  responsibility  in  the  matter.  I  did  not  cre¬ 


ate  them — was  not  consulted.  Now,  if  there 
is  any  one  dissatisfied  with  the  fact,  that  there 
is  a  whole  race  of  human  beings,  with  the  rights 
of  human  beings,  created  with  a  skin  not  col¬ 
ored  like  our  own,  let  him  go  mouth  the 
heavens,  and  mutter  his  blasphemies  in  the  ear 
of  the  God  that  made  us  all.  Tell  Him  that 
He  had  no  business  to  make  human  beings 
with  a  black  skin.  I  repeat,  I  feel  no  respon¬ 
sibility  for  this  fact.  But,  inasmuch  as  it  has 
pleased  God  to  make  them  human  beings,  I 
am  bound  to  regard  them  as  such.  Instead  of 
chattering  your  gibberish  in  my  ear  about  ne¬ 
gro  equality,  go  look  the  Son  of  God  in  the 
face,  and  reproach  him  with  favoring  negro 
equality  because  he  poured  out  his  blood  for 
the  most  abject  and  despised  of  the  human 
family.  Go  settle  this  matter  with  the  God 
who  created,  and  the  Christ  who  redeemed. 

“  He  that  despiseth  the  poor,  reproacheth  his 
Maker.” 

A  single  word  as  to  this  charge  of  negro 
stealing.  I  suppose  I  have  a  right  to  speak  on 
this  subject,  having  been  made  the  object  of 
this  allegation.  So  far  as  any  personal  abuse 
is  concerned,  it  may  go  for  what  it  is  worth.  If 
the  object  is  to  ascertain  whether  I  assist  fugi¬ 
tive  slaves  who  come  to  my  door  and  ask  it,  the 
matter  is  easily  disposed  of.  1  march  right  up 
to  the  confessional,  and  say,  I  do.  I  recollect 
the  case  of  a  young  woman,  who  came  to  my 
house,  who  had  not  a  single  trace  of  African  de¬ 
scent  either  in  feature  or  complexion.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  her  own  story,  she  was  betrothed  to  a 
man  of  her  race,  though  not  of  her  color,  and 
was,  before  her  marriage,  sold  to  a  libertine 
from  the  South,  she  being  in  St.  Louis.  She 
escaped,  and,  in  her  flight  from  a  life  of  infamy 
and  a  fate  worse  than  death,  she  came  and  im¬ 
plored  aid  ?  Was  I  to  refuse  it  ?  Was  I  to  be¬ 
wray  the  wanderer?  Was  I  to  detain  her,  and 
give  her  up  a  prey  to  the  incarnate  fiend  who 
had  selected  her  as  a  victim  to  offer  up  on  the 
altar  of  sensualism  ? 

Who  would  do  it?  I  would  not,  did  not.  No 
human  being,  black  or  white,  bond  or  free,  na¬ 
tive  or  foreign,  infidel  or  Christian,  ever  came 
to  my  door,  and  asked  for  food  and  shelter,  in 
the  name  of  a  common  humanity,  or  of  a  pitying 
Christ,  who  did  not  receive  it.  This  1  have  done. 
This  I  mean  to  do,  as  long  as  God  lets  me  live. 
I  shall  never  “bewray  him  that  wandereth.”  I 
shall  never  become  a  slave  catcher.  Any  one 
who  chooses  may  transform  himself  into  a  blood¬ 
hound — snuff,  and  scent,  and  howl,  along  the 
track  of  the  fugitive — loll  out  his  tongue,  and 
lap  up  the  dirty  water  that  stands  in  mud¬ 
dy  pools  by  the  way  side — overtake  the  rifle- 
scarred  and  lash-excoriated  slave,  (a  mother,  it 
may  be,  with  her  infant,  the  love  of  whom  has 
nerved  her  for  the  flight,)  thrust  his  canine  teeth 
into  the  quivering  flesh,  brace  out  his  fore  feet, 
and  hold  the  captive  till  the  kidnapper  comes, 
with  fetters  and  handcuffs,  to  load  down  ankles 
and  wrist,  and  then  receive,  as  a  reward  of  this 


8 


i 


brutism,  a  pat  on  the  head  from  the  slave 
catcher,  and  the  plaudit,  11  Good  dog,  Bose.” 

Sir,  I  never  will  do  this.  I  never  will  de¬ 
grade  my  manhood,  and  stifle  the  sympathies  of 
human  nature.  It  is  an  insult  to  claim  it.  I 
wish  I  had  nothing  worse  to  meet  at  the  judg¬ 
ment  day  than  that.  I  would  not  have  the  guilt 
of  causing  that  wail  of  man's  despair,  or  that 
wild  shriek  of  woman’s  agony,  as  the  one  or  the 
other  is  captured,  for  all  the  diadems  of  all  the 
stars  in  heaven. 

Is  it  desired  to  call  attention  to  this  fact  ? 
Proclaim  it  then  upon  the  house  tops.  Write 
it  on  every  leaf  that  trembles  in  the  forest, 


make  it  blaze  from  the  sun  at  high  noon,  and 
shine  forth  in  the  milder  radiance  of  every  star 
that  bedecks  the  firmament  of  God.  Let  it  echo 
through  all  the  arches  of  heaven,  and  reverbe¬ 
rate  and  bellow  along  all  the  deep  gorges  of  hell, 
where  slave  catchers  will  be  very  likely  to  hear  it. 
Owen  Lovejoy  lives  at  Princeton,  Illinois,  three- 
quarters  of  a  mile  east  of  the  village,  and  he 
aids  every  fugitive  that  comes  to  his  door  and 
asks  it.  Thou  invisible  demon  of  Slavery,  dost 
thou  think  to  cross  my  humble  threshold,  and 
forbid  me  to  give  bread  to  the  hungry  and 
shelter  to  the  houseless  !  I  BID  YOU  DEFI¬ 
ANCE  IN  THE  NAME  OF  MY  GOD ! 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

BUELL  &  BLANCHARD,  PRINTERS. 

1860. 

*  :  i .) ;  •  ! 


I 


va. 


f'.k- 


